Acta Biochimica Indonesiana (ActaBioIna) employs a single-blind peer review process to ensure that submitted manuscripts are evaluated fairly, independently, and on the basis of scientific merit. Under this model, reviewers are informed of the authors' identities and affiliations, while their own identities remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.

Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment, research integrity screening, and evaluation by two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted work. The Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring that the review process is conducted objectively and that publication decisions reflect the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance of the research.

1. Initial Submission and Administrative Screening

All manuscripts submitted to ActaBioIna are initially examined by the Editorial Office to determine whether they comply with the journal's submission requirements, Author Guidelines, manuscript preparation standards, and relevant publication ethics policies.

The administrative screening includes verification of the required manuscript files, author information, ethical declarations, and supporting documents, where applicable. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be returned to the corresponding author with instructions for completion or correction.

Authors are given 14 calendar days from the date of notification to complete the requested administrative requirements. Manuscripts that remain incomplete after this period may be rejected without undergoing external peer review.

2. Preliminary Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that satisfy the administrative requirements are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor to determine their suitability for the journal.

The assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, scientific contribution, research design, methodological adequacy, and overall quality of presentation.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient scientific merit, or contain major methodological deficiencies may be rejected at this stage without external review. This decision, commonly referred to as desk rejection, is made by the responsible editor.

3. Plagiarism and Research Integrity Screening

Before external peer review, manuscripts that pass the preliminary editorial assessment undergo plagiarism and research integrity screening.

The screening examines potentially problematic textual overlap, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate citation practices, and other concerns that may affect the originality or integrity of the submitted work.

Similarity reports are interpreted by the editors in context rather than relying exclusively on a numerical similarity score. Where necessary, authors may be asked to clarify identified similarities or provide relevant supporting documentation.

Manuscripts involving substantial plagiarism, unresolved ethical concerns, or serious violations of publication standards may be rejected in accordance with the journal's policies.

4. Reviewer Selection and Single-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete editorial screening are assigned to two independent reviewers selected on the basis of their subject expertise, research experience, and ability to provide an objective scientific assessment.

ActaBioIna follows a single-blind peer review model. Reviewers have access to the authors' names and affiliations, but authors are not informed of the identities of the reviewers. Reviewer reports and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript's originality, scientific significance, experimental design, methodological validity, appropriateness of data analysis, interpretation of results, and consistency between the evidence presented and the conclusions drawn. The adequacy of references, clarity of presentation, and compliance with relevant ethical standards are also considered.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Those unable to provide an independent assessment must decline the assignment.

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially, or additional expertise is required, the handling editor may invite another independent reviewer.

Reviewers provide reasoned recommendations to assist editorial decision-making. Their recommendations are advisory, and responsibility for the editorial decision remains with the editors.

5. Editorial Decision and Manuscript Revision

After receiving the reviewers' reports, the handling editor evaluates their comments and recommendations together with the manuscript's scientific merits.

The editorial decision may be one of the following: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

When revisions are required, the corresponding author receives the editorial decision letter and the reviewers' comments without disclosure of the reviewers' identities.

Authors must submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a point-by-point response letter (rebuttal letter) addressing each reviewer and editorial comment. The response should explain the changes made, indicate their location in the revised manuscript, and provide a scientific justification when the authors disagree with a recommendation.

Authors may refer to the Rebuttal Letter Example when preparing their responses.

The deadline for revision will be specified in the editorial decision letter. Authors requiring additional time should contact the Editorial Office before the deadline.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee that the manuscript will subsequently be accepted.

6. Reassessment of Revised Manuscripts

Revised manuscripts are evaluated by the handling editor to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' concerns and whether the revised work meets the journal's scientific and editorial standards.

Where substantial scientific or methodological issues require further evaluation, the manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or referred to additional reviewers.

Further rounds of revision may be requested when necessary. Failure to address essential scientific concerns satisfactorily may result in rejection.

7. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision is made through editorial evaluation, taking into account the reviewers' assessments, the authors' responses, and the scientific quality of the revised manuscript.

The Editorial Board considers whether the manuscript meets the journal's requirements for originality, methodological reliability, scientific significance, ethical compliance, and clarity of reporting.

The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's editorial system or official correspondence.

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and production in accordance with the journal's publication procedures.

8. Confidentiality, Impartiality, and Editorial Independence

Editors and reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, and related editorial communications.

Under the single-blind review model, knowledge of the authors' identities must not influence the fairness or objectivity of the review. Reviewers must assess manuscripts solely on their scientific content and must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.

Editors and reviewers with relevant competing interests must withdraw from the evaluation of the affected manuscript.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial interests, institutional influence, and personal relationships. All participants in the peer review process are expected to comply with the journal's Publication Ethics and Conflict of Interest Policy.